This was a logical combat debut for the F-35, not unlike the F-117's debut in Panama...

While it didn't demonstrate it could survive in an anti-access/area denial environment, it did show some of its merits..

1.) Flew a greater distance than the AV-8B could, striking targets the Harrier couldn't2.) Showed STOVL/navigation and primary air to ground weapons capability3.) Demonstrated the ability to carry (if not use) the gun. We don't really know, but it's doubtful

In any case, I'm betting if you asked the Taliban who got bombed, they'd tell you it was a pretty effective weapon. I predict that in much the same way the F-117 was successful in Iraq, so too will the F-35 be in a future war. In fact, you could make the case it's already done that in Syria. Israeli F-35's aren't exactly welcomed over Syria, and we know they've been used to bomb targets there.

Much respect for the Marines who pulled this off. It was a terrific accomplishment IMO...

Well, the distance part is easy as the F-35B's combat radius is far beyond a Harrier's.

As far as the "striking targets the Harrier couldn't" part goes, it's easy to see that the F-35 will be able to see far more targets and in greater detail than the Harrier could. Can the Harrier carry a 2k smart bomb? Certainly not SDBs.

In any case, I'm betting if you asked the Taliban who got bombed, they'd tell you it was a pretty effective weapon. I predict that in much the same way the F-117 was successful in Iraq, so too will the F-35 be in a future war. In fact, you could make the case it's already done that in Syria. Israeli F-35's aren't exactly welcomed over Syria, and we know they've been used to bomb targets there.

SpudmanWP wrote:Well, the distance part is easy as the F-35B's combat radius is far beyond a Harrier's.

As far as the "striking targets the Harrier couldn't" part goes, it's easy to see that the F-35 will be able to see far more targets and in greater detail than the Harrier could. Can the Harrier carry a 2k smart bomb? Certainly not SDBs.

Oh c'mon. Do you think I just fell off the turnip truck? We're talking about what F-35B DID do on these sorties, not what the jets CAN do, or WILL do sometime in the future. In 2001, Harriers flew 4-6 hour night sorties into Afghanistan from ships in the Arabian Sea -- in 2001. The Litening T-Pod on Harrier is a phenomenal piece of kit that years ago exceeded what EOTS does today; it's as good as any T-pod in the world right now. Harrier carries the same GBUs F-35B is carrying. Did the F-35B carry a 2K weapon on these sorties? (No.) Is it cleared for such weapons at this point. (No.) And why bring up SDB? F-35B does not carry that either.

Is the Harrier an F-35? Not hardly, but these sorties didnt prove anything relative to what a Harrier might or might not have done (as the poster suggested).

SpudmanWP wrote:Well, the distance part is easy as the F-35B's combat radius is far beyond a Harrier's.

As far as the "striking targets the Harrier couldn't" part goes, it's easy to see that the F-35 will be able to see far more targets and in greater detail than the Harrier could. Can the Harrier carry a 2k smart bomb? Certainly not SDBs.

Oh c'mon. Do you think I just fell off the turnip truck? We're talking about what F-35B DID do on these sorties, not what the jets CAN do, or WILL do sometime in the future. In 2001, Harriers flew 4-6 hour night sorties into Afghanistan from ships in the Arabian Sea -- in 2001. The Litening T-Pod on Harrier is a phenomenal piece of kit that years ago exceeded what EOTS does today; it's as good as any T-pod in the world right now. Harrier carries the same GBUs F-35B is carrying. Did the F-35B carry a 2K weapon on these sorties? (No.) Is it cleared for such weapons at this point. (No.) And why bring up SDB? F-35B does not carry that either.

Is the Harrier an F-35? Not hardly, but these sorties didnt prove anything relative to what a Harrier might or might not have done (as the poster suggested).

You know, you're right - I assumed the range thing.

Having said that, it's obvious based on internal fuel/weapons load the F-35 can operate at ranges the Harrier can't. I suppose we can wait around for a combat sortie that makes it "official", but then again people will try and poke holes in anything the F-35 accomplishes. Fact of the matter is the US now has a combat capable 5th gen aircraft flying from the land and sea. It's capabilities are immense vs. prior generation aircraft, and we're producing nearly 100 a year right now, with more on the way AND the price is dropping toward its $80 million/aircraft target.

Russia can't do this. China may be able to but the J-31 is a LONG way off, and the whole world is finding out fielding 5th gen aircraft isn't easy (nor inexpensive). This isn't the debacle that was the Admiral Kustenov/Syria deployment. Far from it, and it was a steppingstone to bigger and better things for the F-35B. Speaking of which, F-35B's will be flying soon from the QE2, along with F-35's from many partner nations. No other country has 5th gens proliferating around the world, along with the price dropping and ever more capability as new blocks are released.

There is every reason to believe that the aircraft will get even better, at which point F-35 haters will have to think of something new to bash..

My guess is those Harrier ops in 2001 are likely to be done lugging 300 gal tanks. That would validate the whole point of the F-35B. If the F-35B can't do what the Harrier does (and more), what would have been the point of buying the Bs?

All planes crash. That's the whole purpose of attrition reserves. Its easy to forget that the plane has been flying around for more than a decade already. 501 would have been flying the Bs from older lots which would probably have more issues than those going to the combat sqns.

awsome wrote: This is what I love about you guys... so many feelings that get hurt if the home team is not the best. I guess troll is better than the usual accusation of spying.

Really, I'm still struggling to understand your points here. Honestly I didn't understand a bit of what you mean with any of your posts, apart from them being some sort of a weird and pointless criticism to the F-35.At least many of others who criticized the F-35 here in the past came up with concrete points, despite the vast majority of them being wrong but at least they criticized something in concrete. But you on the contrary, only make some unsubstantial criticism and that I'm afraid puts you in the "Troll" realm.

A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.

quicksilver wrote:Oh c'mon. Do you think I just fell off the turnip truck? We're talking about what F-35B DID do on these sorties, not what the jets CAN do, or WILL do sometime in the future.:

"Sensors" is not just EOTS, but also SAR, EODAS, ESM, and datalinked info from other F-35s. Combine that with much better target ID techniques, HMDS, and better cockpit displays gives the F-35 the clear advantage.

Besides, I was just surmising as the mission details on range and target prosecution are classified.

awsome wrote: This is what I love about you guys... so many feelings that get hurt if the home team is not the best. I guess troll is better than the usual accusation of spying.

Really, I'm still struggling to understand your points here. Honestly I didn't understand a bit of what you mean with any of your posts, apart from them being some sort of a weird and pointless criticism to the F-35.At least many of others who criticized the F-35 here in the past came up with concrete points, despite the vast majority of them being wrong but at least they criticized something in concrete. But you on the contrary, only make some unsubstantial criticism and that I'm afraid puts you in the "Troll" realm.

I am not pro F-35 and I am not anti F-35. It does however greatly amuse me how the community here is completely unwilling to admit the F-22 and F-35 may just possibly not be invincible. Could it be possible that after hundreds of strikes in Syria the Syrian air defenses got in a lucky shot and damaged the "bird strike" F-35?

awsome wrote: ... It does however greatly amuse me how the community here is completely unwilling to admit the F-22 and F-35 may just possibly not be invincible. Could it be possible that after hundreds of strikes in Syria the Syrian air defenses got in a lucky shot and damaged the "bird strike" F-35?

Why on Earth would we need to ADMIT to anyone that the F-22A and F-35 are not invincible? The F-15 was rather invincible for decades. So given what these jets are, it's not at all unreasonable to regard them as superior in every way to anything else, because they actually are.

You aren't here for 'balance', who do you think you're kidding? You're here to gloat about a lost jet, and to muck-rake about 'exceptionalism', and other petty nonsense, while avoiding a conversation where facts and logic are involved, because if you got into one of those you'd get smashed.

So run along like a good little troll and come back when you have something else to get all petty and pointless about.

Last edited by element1loop on 29 Sep 2018, 18:57, edited 1 time in total.

Hey awesome, why don't you admit that RuAF Su-30SM that ate a bird and crashed into the Med recently was actually shot down by F-35 during one of those "dogfights" the Russians keep having with USAF over Syria? Check-mate haters, Flanker suxx and F-35 is invincible

awsome wrote:In any case, I'm betting if you asked the Taliban who got bombed, they'd tell you it was a pretty effective weapon. I predict that in much the same way the F-117 was successful in Iraq, so too will the F-35 be in a future war. In fact, you could make the case it's already done that in Syria. Israeli F-35's aren't exactly welcomed over Syria, and we know they've been used to bomb targets there.

Yes the same F-35 that was put out of action by an old S-20.... er I mean bird strike...

Troll...

Nothing more, nothing less. You'll be ignored here. That is all..

This is what I love about you guys... so many feelings that get hurt if the home team is not the best. I guess troll is better than the usual accusation of spying.

But you are trolling. Youre presenting things without evidence specifically to provoke, and then when people are provoked using it to call them out on based on the forum in use.

youre not even being subtle about it.

Youre welcome to post alternative views, and I welcome them in fact. But thats not what youre doing and you know that as well.